Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

[Merged by Bors] - Note that changes to licensing are controversial #4975

Closed
wants to merge 9 commits into from
Closed

[Merged by Bors] - Note that changes to licensing are controversial #4975

wants to merge 9 commits into from

Conversation

alice-i-cecile
Copy link
Member

Objective

@alice-i-cecile alice-i-cecile added C-Docs An addition or correction to our documentation A-Meta About the project itself labels Jun 9, 2022
@alice-i-cecile
Copy link
Member Author

If we want to make any follow-up changes to #4966 (or revert it); let me know and I'll do that work myself, either in this PR or another one.

@alice-i-cecile alice-i-cecile added the X-Controversial There is active debate or serious implications around merging this PR label Jun 9, 2022
DJMcNab
DJMcNab reviewed Jun 9, 2022
View reviewed changes
README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@DJMcNab
Copy link
Member

DJMcNab commented Jun 9, 2022 •
edited
Loading

As I aimed to express in #4966, I don't think we need to revert it.

cart
cart approved these changes Jun 9, 2022
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@cart cart left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yup I agree that these changes should be considered controversial. Once we sort out @DJMcNab's "other license files" thread I think this is good to go.

@alice-i-cecile
Copy link
Member Author

I've tried to capture the details here in a relatively approachable way; let me know what you think.

I've also split out the section on the contribution agreement into its own subsection for clarity.

DJMcNab
DJMcNab reviewed Jun 10, 2022
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@DJMcNab DJMcNab left a comment •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm happy we're getting around to updating this. I've got some opinions about the exact details we should include and form this should take, but I think the general direction is good.

README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
README.md Show resolved Hide resolved
README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
README.md
or will be listed directly in the source as a comment, in the case of small snippets.

The [assets](assets) included in this repository for testing purposes typically fall under different open licenses.
See [CREDITS.md](CREDITS.md) for the details of the licenses of those files.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We should ensure that this reflects all of the assets licenses.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Agreed. I'd personally prefer just keeping a CSV.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Punting this for future work.

README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
DJMcNab
DJMcNab approved these changes Jul 20, 2022
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@DJMcNab DJMcNab left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm happy enough with this - I hope that all the claims we make here are true. At the very least, we should record checking that as a follow-up. I want to land the contributing.md changes soon-ish though

README.md

### Your contributions

Unless you explicitly state otherwise,
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I still think this should stay directly after "at your option", however I don't want to block on that.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think it's much clearer this way 😄

Copy link
Member

@DJMcNab DJMcNab Jul 20, 2022 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

But it's nonstandard, and it's directly related to the dual MIT/Apache 2.0

Like this "as above" to me reads as all of the 'junk' after the dual MIT/Apache, but it really only means the dual MIT/Apache.

@alice-i-cecile alice-i-cecile mentioned this pull request Jul 20, 2022
Open
@alice-i-cecile
Copy link
Member Author

Created #5399 to capture the "check that everything is kosher" task that got punted. Merging now; feel free to tweak wording further in a follow-up PR.

bors r+

@alice-i-cecile alice-i-cecile added the S-Ready-For-Final-Review This PR has been approved by the community. It's ready for a maintainer to consider merging it label Jul 20, 2022
bors bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 20, 2022
@alice-i-cecile
Note that changes to licensing are controversial (#4975)
db86023 
# Objective

- In #4966, @DJMcNab noted that the changes should likely have been flagged as controversial, and blocked on a final pass from @cart.
  - I think this is generally reasonable.
  - Added as an explicit guideline.
- Changes to top-level files are also typically controversial, due to the high visible impact (see #4700 for a case of that).
  - Added as an explicit guideline.
- The licensing information of our included assets is hard to find.
   - Call out the existence of CREDITS.md
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors bot commented Jul 20, 2022

Pull request successfully merged into main.

Build succeeded:

@bors bors bot changed the title Note that changes to licensing are controversial [Merged by Bors] - Note that changes to licensing are controversial Jul 20, 2022
@bors bors bot closed this Jul 20, 2022
inodentry pushed a commit to IyesGames/bevy that referenced this pull request Aug 8, 2022
@alice-i-cecile @inodentry
Note that changes to licensing are controversial (bevyengine#4975)
f48e496 
# Objective

- In bevyengine#4966, @DJMcNab noted that the changes should likely have been flagged as controversial, and blocked on a final pass from @cart.
  - I think this is generally reasonable.
  - Added as an explicit guideline.
- Changes to top-level files are also typically controversial, due to the high visible impact (see bevyengine#4700 for a case of that).
  - Added as an explicit guideline.
- The licensing information of our included assets is hard to find.
   - Call out the existence of CREDITS.md
james7132 pushed a commit to james7132/bevy that referenced this pull request Oct 28, 2022
@alice-i-cecile @james7132
Note that changes to licensing are controversial (bevyengine#4975)
97209f1 
# Objective

- In bevyengine#4966, @DJMcNab noted that the changes should likely have been flagged as controversial, and blocked on a final pass from @cart.
  - I think this is generally reasonable.
  - Added as an explicit guideline.
- Changes to top-level files are also typically controversial, due to the high visible impact (see bevyengine#4700 for a case of that).
  - Added as an explicit guideline.
- The licensing information of our included assets is hard to find.
   - Call out the existence of CREDITS.md
ItsDoot pushed a commit to ItsDoot/bevy that referenced this pull request Feb 1, 2023
@alice-i-cecile @ItsDoot
Note that changes to licensing are controversial (bevyengine#4975)
7b7cafa 
# Objective

- In bevyengine#4966, @DJMcNab noted that the changes should likely have been flagged as controversial, and blocked on a final pass from @cart.
  - I think this is generally reasonable.
  - Added as an explicit guideline.
- Changes to top-level files are also typically controversial, due to the high visible impact (see bevyengine#4700 for a case of that).
  - Added as an explicit guideline.
- The licensing information of our included assets is hard to find.
   - Call out the existence of CREDITS.md
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@DJMcNab DJMcNab DJMcNab approved these changes

@cart cart Awaiting requested review from cart

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
A-Meta About the project itself C-Docs An addition or correction to our documentation S-Ready-For-Final-Review This PR has been approved by the community. It's ready for a maintainer to consider merging it X-Controversial There is active debate or serious implications around merging this PR
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
3 participants
@alice-i-cecile @DJMcNab @cart